I read "A radical new injustice - tiny horses helping disabled people - is sweeping the nation thanks to the Obama administration" and was like "WTF? Helping disabled people is a radical new injustice?"

Oh, good, a Republican complaining about a law. Let's find out why his complaint is irrational and misinformed.

FTFDoJ:The rule permits the use of trained miniature horses as alternatives to dogs, subject to certain limitations. To allow flexibility in situations where using a horse would not be appropriate, the final rule does not include miniature horses in the definition of "service animal."

I'm sure pointing that out to him would be met with a sincere mea culpa; he definitely wouldn't fly off the handle and accuse your of being a communist.

qorkfiend:I read "A radical new injustice - tiny horses helping disabled people - is sweeping the nation thanks to the Obama administration" and was like "WTF? Helping disabled people is a radical new injustice?"

You know who's going to pay for all this? The taxpayer. You've got these welfare queens, they can't hold a steady job, but when their daughter wants a pony for Christmas? Sure honey! It's for... your emotional... security. Your emotional security! Everybody gets a pony. If the Obama Administration - which at this point is little more than a dog and pony show itself - had its way, it would be giving ponies to children of poor, black, unwed single mothers, who don't have any skin in the game, so that they can continue to mollycoddle this next generation of welfare dependents in exchange for their probably illegal votes. Vote early, vote often, and bring your 'service' pony with you to the voting booth - hell, it can vote too. That's what this nation's coming to.

Oh, wait, check what I just posted. He was doing his calculation with $1T and not the $1.75T he said these regulations cost. Still, he's off by over 200 years, which may not be "that f*cked up" as I said in the last post, but is still off by ~9%. Hyperbolic rhetoric is not convincing.

Kome:Oh, wait, check what I just posted. He was doing his calculation with $1T and not the $1.75T he said these regulations cost. Still, he's off by over 200 years, which may not be "that f*cked up" as I said in the last post, but is still off by ~9%. Hyperbolic rhetoric is not convincing.

qorkfiend:Kome: Oh, wait, check what I just posted. He was doing his calculation with $1T and not the $1.75T he said these regulations cost. Still, he's off by over 200 years, which may not be "that f*cked up" as I said in the last post, but is still off by ~9%. Hyperbolic rhetoric is not convincing.

Sorry, didn't see this before I posted ^_^

It's okay. I feel really silly for not having double-checked before posting. Getting called out on making a mistake like I did is expected. =)

The law specifically excludes horses from the definition of "service animal," however, noting that there are some situations "where using a horse would not be appropriate." Like in a restaurant.

OK, so he wants to make something illegal that's already illegal? Must be a fan of regulation and Big Government...

Still, Chaffetz cites "estimates" by the conservative business advocacy group Competitive Enterprise Institute - an organization with a history of denying climate science and the harms of tobacco - which claims that the sum total of all government regulations "cost the economy $1.75 trillion in 2008."

"That's Trillion with a T," he wrote. "If you were to spend $1 million a day every day, it would take you nearly 3,000 years just to get to $1 trillion. That's a massive drag on the US economy."

OK, so he thinks excessive government regulation is a bad thi.., wait, wut?

How the FARK can this asshat rail for both MORE government control and LESS government control at the same farking time?

Oh, wait, it's Jason Chaffetz, our current second in line embarrassment, right behind Whorin' Orrin Hatch. What a douche. And people lap this shiat up...

next thing you know these republicans will be banning wheels chairs. Have you ever seen someone dragging themselves through wal-mart to buy adult diapers. It's farking horrible. That's why I'm voting for Obama.

Really? Why? They can carry more, they are bigger, and they're smart. There are ways to deal with the bathroom issues, and like the law already states, they aren't allowed in restaurants anyway.

There's nothing in the proposed regs which would exclude horses from restaurants.

"(9) Miniature horses.(i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.(ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider -(A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;(B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;(C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and(D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.(iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses"

Really? Why? They can carry more, they are bigger, and they're smart. There are ways to deal with the bathroom issues, and like the law already states, they aren't allowed in restaurants anyway.

There's nothing in the proposed regs which would exclude horses from restaurants.

"(9) Miniature horses.(i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.(ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider -(A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;(B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;(C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and(D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.(iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses"

Link

Even though they are excluded from the definition of service animal, the same provisions apply to them nonetheless.

I think "C" is going to be a particularly difficult hurdle for a tiny horse.

Really? Why? They can carry more, they are bigger, and they're smart. There are ways to deal with the bathroom issues, and like the law already states, they aren't allowed in restaurants anyway.

There's nothing in the proposed regs which would exclude horses from restaurants.

"(9) Miniature horses.(i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.(ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider -(A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;(B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;(C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and(D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.(iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses"

Link

Even though they are excluded from the definition of service animal, the same provisions apply to them nonetheless.

See 'C'?

FTFA:

"Look, even the Miniature Horse Association... has come out and said, 'Look, you can't potty train, for instance, a horse to the same degree you can a canine.'"

Really? Why? They can carry more, they are bigger, and they're smart. There are ways to deal with the bathroom issues, and like the law already states, they aren't allowed in restaurants anyway.

There's nothing in the proposed regs which would exclude horses from restaurants.

"(9) Miniature horses.(i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.(ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider -(A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;(B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;(C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and(D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.(iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses"

Link

Even though they are excluded from the definition of service animal, the same provisions apply to them nonetheless.

See 'C'?

FTFA:

"Look, even the Miniature Horse Association... has come out and said, 'Look, you can't potty train, for instance, a horse to the same degree you can a canine.'"

"Look, even the Miniature Horse Association... has come out and said, 'Look, you can't potty train, for instance, a horse to the same degree you can a canine.'"

Straight from the horse's ass, so to speak...

So, you don't have a problem with his proposed bill? If you were a restaurant owner, would you be comfortable enough with the language in the regs to ban horses? Do the regs permit a restaurant owner to inquire as to whether or not the horse is housebroken?

Kome:"That's Trillion with a T," he wrote. "If you were to spend $1 million a day every day, it would take you nearly 3,000 years just to get to $1 trillion. That's a massive drag on the US economy."

If your basic math is that f*cked up, what possible reason can you give me to listen to anything you say about economic effects of regulations?

It would take about 2,737 years and 332 days, accounting roughly for leap years but not leap seconds. That's slightly below the threshold that I personally would use for "nearly 3,000 years", but not by all that much.

Cataholic:So, you don't have a problem with his proposed bill? If you were a restaurant owner, would you be comfortable enough with the language in the regs to ban horses? Do the regs permit a restaurant owner to inquire as to whether or not the horse is housebroken?

Chaffetz is a tool, if he supports something, it's almost always guaranteed to be a pissing contest with the Dems or the feds, and it's only the feds when the Dems are in charge. He's blowing smoke and just trying to do what I said, expand government while simultaneously decrying big government.

Since it is pretty much a known thing that the horses can't he housebroken as thoroughly as a dog, then the restaurant owner doesn't have to worry, Chaffetz is just making a mountain out of a miniature horse.